Editing 325: A-Minus-Minus

Jump to: navigation, search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 10: Line 10:
 
[[Black Hat]] is trying to make the world a weirder place by shipping bobcats to his {{w|eBay}} buyers. Ordinarily, negative feedback is used to warn future buyers about sellers who ship broken products or post misleading listings. In this case, the unfortunate buyer is leaving feedback warning future buyers that Black Hat ships {{w|bobcat}}s instead of the actual products, though "would not buy again" seems to be a rather feeble response to the replacement. This appears to have been a continuing project, as [[Cueball]] receives random packages a year and a half later ([[576: Packages]]). Four years later, it is shown that you can blackmail Black Hat into not sending you a bobcat ([[837: Coupon Code]]). This comic is also referenced in [http://www.amazon.com/review/R2PBRQNTVGO7NH/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0544272994&nodeID=283155&store=books a popular Amazon review] for Randall Munroe's book, What If: Serious Scientific Answers to Absurd Hypothetical Questions.
 
[[Black Hat]] is trying to make the world a weirder place by shipping bobcats to his {{w|eBay}} buyers. Ordinarily, negative feedback is used to warn future buyers about sellers who ship broken products or post misleading listings. In this case, the unfortunate buyer is leaving feedback warning future buyers that Black Hat ships {{w|bobcat}}s instead of the actual products, though "would not buy again" seems to be a rather feeble response to the replacement. This appears to have been a continuing project, as [[Cueball]] receives random packages a year and a half later ([[576: Packages]]). Four years later, it is shown that you can blackmail Black Hat into not sending you a bobcat ([[837: Coupon Code]]). This comic is also referenced in [http://www.amazon.com/review/R2PBRQNTVGO7NH/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0544272994&nodeID=283155&store=books a popular Amazon review] for Randall Munroe's book, What If: Serious Scientific Answers to Absurd Hypothetical Questions.
  
The weak "would not buy again" comment is a play on the stock "would buy again" comment often found in positive eBay feedback; the title "A-Minus-Minus" is a play on the frequent comment "A++."  That in turn, sometimes with varying numbers of pluses, seems to be an easy way people use to pad the end of an eBay comment field to the maximum 80 characters. It's also a reference to jokes in which exceptionally good schoolwork is graded with extra pluses after an A+ (and exceptionally bad work is graded with large numbers of minuses after an F).  
+
The weak "would not buy again" comment is a play on the stock "would buy again" comment often found in positive eBay feedback; the title "A-Minus-Minus" is a play on the frequent comment "A++."  That in turn, sometimes with varying numbers of pluses, seems to be an easy way people use to pad the end of an eBay comment field to the maximum 80 characters. It's also a reference to jokes in which exceptionally good schoolwork is graded with extra pluses after an A+ (and exceptionally bad work is graded with large numbers of minuses after an F). And finally, it's also a subtle reference to the {{w|Futurama}} episode {{w|A Big Piece of Garbage}}; at one point in that episode, Wernstrom, as an act of petty revenge, gives Farnsworth "the worst grade imaginable:" an A-minus-MINUS.  
  
 
The title text is about a flaw in eBay's feedback system: You can intentionally do nasty things to your buyers and get ''very'' bad reviews, but still have overall high feedback scores as long as you don't do it too often. (See also [[937: TornadoGuard]], which shows a different flaw in the concept of averaging reviews — namely that five-star reviews for aesthetic qualities are weighted equally to one-star reviews for major functional deficits — and [[1098: Star Ratings]], which addresses the topic as well.) These reviews would be disregarded by future customers as well for their weirdness.
 
The title text is about a flaw in eBay's feedback system: You can intentionally do nasty things to your buyers and get ''very'' bad reviews, but still have overall high feedback scores as long as you don't do it too often. (See also [[937: TornadoGuard]], which shows a different flaw in the concept of averaging reviews — namely that five-star reviews for aesthetic qualities are weighted equally to one-star reviews for major functional deficits — and [[1098: Star Ratings]], which addresses the topic as well.) These reviews would be disregarded by future customers as well for their weirdness.

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)